Top merchants by trust score, optionally filtered to one network (e.g. base-mainnet, algorand-mainnet, solana-mainnet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (1-50, default 10) | |
| network | No | Optional exact-match network filter |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the core function and gives network examples, but does not disclose output format, default behavior, or any side effects. This is minimal for a tool that returns a list.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and includes useful examples. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity and the complete input schema, the description sufficiently covers the main use case. The lack of an output schema and the absence of any description of the return structure leaves a small gap, but it is not critical for this simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage for both limit and network. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete network examples (base-mainnet, algorand-mainnet, solana-mainnet), which clarifies valid values for the network parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the resource (top merchants) and metric (trust score), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_trust and compare_merchants. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve', making it a noun phrase rather than a full action statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The network filter examples provide some usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_trust or compare_merchants. The usage is implied rather than clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: check_trust for a single merchant report, compare_merchants for head-to-head comparison, get_badge_url for generating embeddable badges, and leaderboard for top merchants. There is no overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (check_trust, compare_merchants, get_badge_url), but 'leaderboard' is a bare noun, breaking the pattern slightly. The inconsistency is minor and the names remain clear and predictable.
Four tools is an appropriate size for a focused trust-check service. Each tool covers a necessary function without bloat or redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core domain: single trust checks, comparisons, badge generation, and top-merchant discovery. No obvious missing operations for a read-only trust service.